Bible Pay

Poll

What UTXO Staking Method and Required Amount should we use for PODC Mining?

NONE (0), We should Remove the requirement
0 (0%)
LEGACY - Lets Put it back to the 0-50,000 UTXO Chart where 50,001 BBP = 100% UTXO
2 (3.9%)
250 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
500 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
1000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
2500 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
5000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
10,000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
16 (31.4%)
20,000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
2 (3.9%)
50,000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
5 (9.8%)
5 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
10 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
3 (5.9%)
20 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
19 (37.3%)
30 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
50 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
75 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
100 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
250 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
500 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 51

Voting closed: April 01, 2018, 09:01:08 am

Read 2787 times

  • aikida3k
  • Newbie

    • 15


    • 2
    • November 04, 2017, 02:20:44 pm
    more
Staking per MAG keeps the race to the bottom in.  Right now a rational player will introduce as many computers to crunch as capital will allow because breakevens are so high.  Therefore introduce as many computers as capital allows until your breakeven is reached.  Sell your biblepay on the market.  In the process biblepay has no natural buyers, only natural sellers- the miners and the crunchers.  Buyers, not miners are the ones who are really supporting the orphans.  Miners and crunchers introduce supply while buyers sop up supply.  It works the same way in all commodities:  If the price of oil is above your expected breakeven, you go out and explore for more oil until you reach your breakevens.  In the process you introduce more supply on the market which eventually makes prices come down again.  If you are a cattle rancher and prices are above your breakeven, you increase your herd size and your production until you reach your breakevens.  Selling your calves on the market with greater supply eventually brings prices back down.  The difference between BBP and oil and cattle?  There are natural buyers:  people have to buy oil to make gasoline and diesel.  People have to buy fat cattle to make beef.  People don't have to keep buying BBP once the static stake amount to magnitude is reached, however, staking to RAC, miners then become natural buyers as they seek to increase the amount of BBP they can generate.  Traders and investors see this and are encouraged and buy. 

We don't do enough to encourage buyers.  Staking to RAC would help that.


  • MIP
  • Jr. Member

    • 97


    • 10
    • February 13, 2018, 11:55:52 am
    more
I'm also for the staking-per-RAC idea.

It allows decoupling users from what other team members are doing (as it would happen with a relative number as magnitude). It can also boost the coin price and incentives to keep it instead selling it.

You add more CPU power = you must stake more BBP. 

We can even afford to change the number of BBP per RAC unit in the future as we see the evolution of this new PoDC system (for example if the overall RAC of the team surpasses the amount of BBP in circulation).

« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 10:40:30 am by MIP »


  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 170


    • 13
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
I commented in the other poll, but here is a short version of why staking per RAC is, to me, not workable.

Right now, if you stake per RAC at 10BBP/RAC, a 10K RAC machine would make roughly 15K BBP/day, and need a stake of 100K.  So 8 days to stake equity, much to fast in my thoughts.  But by the end of the year I expect us to be at 20M RAC and the reward will have dropped by about 12%, so the same 10K machine would make about 700BBP/day, or 150 days to stake equity.

Any system that doesn't slide based on the reward (which then becomes hard to understand) will be too generous to us now or too restrictive to us later.

The most fair system would be very hard to explain to new users, but would be some multiple of your daily reward held as stake, 100x or 150x spring to mind.  But coding that and presenting that in a way that could be easily to predict would likely be too complex for many new users.


  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
I commented in the other poll, but here is a short version of why staking per RAC is, to me, not workable.

Right now, if you stake per RAC at 10BBP/RAC, a 10K RAC machine would make roughly 15K BBP/day, and need a stake of 100K.  So 8 days to stake equity, much to fast in my thoughts.  But by the end of the year I expect us to be at 20M RAC and the reward will have dropped by about 12%, so the same 10K machine would make about 700BBP/day, or 150 days to stake equity.

Any system that doesn't slide based on the reward (which then becomes hard to understand) will be too generous to us now or too restrictive to us later.

The most fair system would be very hard to explain to new users, but would be some multiple of your daily reward held as stake, 100x or 150x spring to mind.  But coding that and presenting that in a way that could be easily to predict would likely be too complex for many new users.

I would argue that the most fair system is to not enforce staking at all.


  • MIP
  • Jr. Member

    • 97


    • 10
    • February 13, 2018, 11:55:52 am
    more
My humble opinion:

Even though we know that helping orphans/distressed people is a comforting feeling, we must also watch for the investor interest.

Remember, no investors (mining, MN, traders...) = no coin = no help for the needy

The average investor is our friend, not our enemy. We don't have to scare or fear them, we need to manage them so there is no room for unnecessary greed, but for healthy returns.

To distribute wealth, first we need to create it. So I agree with some of T-Mike points.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 09:47:02 am by MIP »


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1027


    • 17
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
My humble opinion:

Even though we know that helping orphans/distressed people is a comforting feeling, we must also watch for the investor interest.

Remember, no investors (mining, MN, traders...) = no coin = no help for the needy

The average investor is our friend, not our enemy. We don't have to scare or fear them, we need to manage them so there is no room for unnecessary greed, but for healthy returns.

To distribute wealth, first we need to create it. So I agree with some of T-Mike points.

I really dont understand your perspective here MIP, I think my opinion is completely aligned with the investor.

Im Not here for the Miner, Im here for the small unbanked home PC driven average joe six pack and the investor.

Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL :)

Sorry if I came across harshly Mike-T, I guess I made the assumption that you were biased because you own 20% of the magnitude.

Lets call a truce and start over with a clean slate.



  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
I really dont understand your perspective here MIP, I think my opinion is completely aligned with the investor.

Im Not here for the Miner, Im here for the small unbanked home PC driven average joe six pack and the investor.

Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL :)

Sorry if I came across harshly Mike-T, I guess I made the assumption that you were biased because you own 20% of the magnitude.

Lets call a truce and start over with a clean slate.

Agreed Rob, thank you for the apology.


  • MIP
  • Jr. Member

    • 97


    • 10
    • February 13, 2018, 11:55:52 am
    more
Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL :)

I was not targeting you in my comments, it was just an open thought.


  • jaapgvk
  • Sr. Member

    • 437


    • 18
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
I'm still really trying to wrap my head around the economics behind the Mag/RAC proposal. But would it maybe be an idea to have a Stake per MAG version with inflation (relative to the deflation of BBP or something)?

So the amount of total BBP that needs to be staked per MAG would inflate with for example 1.8% per month.


  • jaapgvk
  • Sr. Member

    • 437


    • 18
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
Still haven't voted. Both sides have their merits. Does anyone have any last-minute thoughts?


  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 170


    • 13
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
I'll be honest, I like the Mag better but will try and be fair to both sides.  Under any circumstances, either system will be more equitable than the original one and should help reduce the impact of botnets and provide more balance between big and small users.  The downside of both is they are more complex than the original system and might confuse new users.

The original system by most standards is cheap for big users and costly for small users.  It's very unfair.

The RAC system will lock up more coins and grow as the coin supply grows (100M under the current leader and values).  We already lock up a lot with Masternodes, but that is suspected to become a smaller percentile over time so RAC Staking would help keep more coins locked and off the market.  That should add stability to the price.  The down side is it's not out of the question that we could be at 20M RAC next year.  The RAC system actually benefits current users more so than future users, because right now 10 Mag would be about 10K BBP/ Day and require roughly 1M BBP (at 20 BBP/RAC) to be staked.  In a year that same 50K would (in a 20M RAC team) only grant about 2.5 Mag, would be about a 2K/Day reward but still require 1M BBP to be staked.  So the ROI is far better today than it will ever be, unless we constantly change the staking requirement and gives, to me, an unfair early adopter advantage.  Constantly changing is to me a negative and any self-correcting system will add a lot of complexity.

The Mag system will keep a constant number of coins locked up (10M under the current leader).  This will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the supply as the coin supply increases.  It has the benefits that if we choose a good number, we won't have to tweak it down the road and, to me, is more fair as in the above example 10 Mag would require 100K (with the current leader of 10K/Mag) to stake to receive the 10K reward, and in the future it would require 25K Staked to receive the 2K/Day reward.  So the ROI remains constant.  The downside is even under the most ambitious selection of 50K/Mag, Mag Staking is going to require less and will do less to balance the playing field between larger users and new users.

I personally voted 50K / MAG which is the highest MAG choice and still likely a bit too low.  I do think for now, 20 / RAC is a good option but I think it will have to be revised downward every 3 to 6 months as our RAC increases.


  • fahq420
  • Newbie

    • 1


    • 0
    • March 27, 2018, 03:21:03 pm
    more
It doesnt allow me to vote, i understand you want real users, not botnets.

but IMO forcing people to stake the coin to get rewarded for mining the coin... is a HUGE mistake. Also, this huge convoluted process of boinc with the 2 projects and stuff... is potentially going to keep the range of users this coin gets used by, extremely small.   I've been mining for Several years, way before mt gox, and bitmain were even around. Not trying to say that i know more than any one, but i have been listening to "normal every day miners" for quite some time, and I think the way this is going with all the complications, is not going to do well for the coin in general, but i pray that you find a way to make it work... The Lord (and his word, and so forth) needs to available to all.


  • jaapgvk
  • Sr. Member

    • 437


    • 18
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
It doesnt allow me to vote, i understand you want real users, not botnets.

but IMO forcing people to stake the coin to get rewarded for mining the coin... is a HUGE mistake. Also, this huge convoluted process of boinc with the 2 projects and stuff... is potentially going to keep the range of users this coin gets used by, extremely small.   I've been mining for Several years, way before mt gox, and bitmain were even around. Not trying to say that i know more than any one, but i have been listening to "normal every day miners" for quite some time, and I think the way this is going with all the complications, is not going to do well for the coin in general, but i pray that you find a way to make it work... The Lord (and his word, and so forth) needs to available to all.

The poll is closed.

Could you maybe read this guide and give feedback if possible on how to make the process easier? https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/mining-how-to/

The staking bit should just say that the wallet sets the staking-amount automatically (or stake everything you have if you have less than what is calculated by the wallet).


  • LifeThruGrace
  • Newbie

    • 14


    • 0
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
    more
Can you make Magnitude 0 to 100 instead of 1,000? 0 to 100 makes more sense as a percentage than 0 to 1000. Easier to comprehend right away.


  • jaapgvk
  • Sr. Member

    • 437


    • 18
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
Can you make Magnitude 0 to 100 instead of 1,000? 0 to 100 makes more sense as a percentage than 0 to 1000. Easier to comprehend right away.

I agree with this. It's more intuitive.